What's your point? The same could be said of "conservative parties are a platform to neo-Nazis and white supremacists" it doesn't imply all conservatives are neo-Nazis and white supremacists, but... "the implication."
So you don't think that singling out "leftist violence" in events where there were "alt-right violence" is choosing one side?
Or accusing "PC authoritarians" of stifling diversity of opinion? (violence is not just punching people)
Or accusing "the Left" of denying science regarding biological differences between individuals? (there's a huge difference between "taking with a grain of salt, considering there's a lot of societal factors that might play a bigger role" and "denying")
Damore does a really good job of adding a lot of disclaimers and caveat emptors around a lot of his arguments, but he really didn't put that much effort into hiding his derision for "the Left."
You still haven't acknowledged that you wrote something that has since been proven incorrect. I'm reluctant to continue the conversation because of that, but:
> So you don't think that singling out "leftist violence" in events where there were "alt-right violence" is choosing one side?
James's discussion of left violence is because Google is a left wing company.
If Google was a right wing company, then saying "Google has mainly right wing politics but has avoided the violence associated with far right groups" would indeed by apt.
Those are different statements. The memo didn't say "liberal parties are a platform to authoritarians and antifascists". If it had, I would agree with your characterization. The strawman arguments in this drama are staggering. I guess Damore couldn't have been all wrong if his critics depend on mischaracterizations and other fallacies.
